Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 2001 Winter;34(4):463–473. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-463

Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments.

I G DeLeon 1, W W Fisher 1, V Rodriguez-Catter 1, K Maglieri 1, K Herman 1, J M Marhefka 1
PMCID: PMC1284340  PMID: 11800185

Abstract

Several brief preference assessments have recently been developed to identify reinforcers for individuals with developmental disabilities. One purported advantage of brief assessments is that they can be administered frequently, thus accommodating shifts in preference and presumably enhancing reinforcement effects. In this study, we initially conducted lengthy paired-choice preference assessments and identified a hierarchy of preferred items for 5 individuals with developmental disabilities. Subsequently, brief multiple-stimulus-without-replacement assessments using the same items were completed each day prior to work sessions. On days when results of the daily brief assessment differed from the one-time lengthy assessment, the relative reinforcing effects of the top items from each assessment were compared in a concurrent-schedule arrangement. The results revealed that when the two assessments differed, participants generally allocated more responses to the task associated with the daily top-ranked item.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (144.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bowman L. G., Piazza C. C., Fisher W. W., Hagopian L. P., Kogan J. S. Assessment of preference for varied versus constant reinforcers. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;30(3):451–458. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-451. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Catania A. C., Sagvolden T. Preference for free choice over forced choice in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Jul;34(1):77–86. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. DeLeon I. G., Iwata B. A. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Winter;29(4):519–533. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dyer K. The competition of autistic stereotyped behavior with usual and specially assessed reinforcers. Res Dev Disabil. 1987;8(4):607–626. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(87)90056-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Egel A. L. Reinforcer variation: implications for motivating developmentally disabled children. J Appl Behav Anal. 1981 Fall;14(3):345–350. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1981.14-345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fisher W. W., Mazur J. E. Basic and applied research on choice responding. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;30(3):387–410. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fisher W. W., Piazza C. C., Bowman L. G., Amari A. Integrating caregiver report with systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. Am J Ment Retard. 1996 Jul;101(1):15–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fisher W. W., Thompson R. H., Piazza C. C., Crosland K., Gotjen D. On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;30(3):423–438. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fisher W., Piazza C. C., Bowman L. G., Hagopian L. P., Owens J. C., Slevin I. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1992 Summer;25(2):491–498. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Graff R. B., Libby M. E. A comparison of presession and within-session reinforcement choice. J Appl Behav Anal. 1999 Summer;32(2):161–173. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kennedy C. H., Haring T. G. Teaching choice making during social interactions to students with profound multiple disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1993 Spring;26(1):63–76. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lohrmann-O'Rourke S., Browder D. M. Empirically based methods to assess the preferences of individuals with severe disabilities. Am J Ment Retard. 1998 Sep;103(2):146–161. doi: 10.1352/0895-8017(1998)103<0146:EBMTAT>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Mason S. A., McGee G. G., Farmer-Dougan V., Risley T. R. A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment. J Appl Behav Anal. 1989 Summer;22(2):171–179. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1989.22-171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Matson J. L., Bielecki J., Mayville E. A., Smalls Y., Bamburg J. W., Baglio C. S. The development of a reinforcer choice assessment scale for persons with severe and profound mental retardation. Res Dev Disabil. 1999 Sep-Oct;20(5):379–384. doi: 10.1016/s0891-4222(99)00018-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Pace G. M., Ivancic M. T., Edwards G. L., Iwata B. A., Page T. J. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. J Appl Behav Anal. 1985 Fall;18(3):249–255. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Roane H. S., Vollmer T. R., Ringdahl J. E., Marcus B. A. Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. J Appl Behav Anal. 1998 Winter;31(4):605–620. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Roscoe E. M., Iwata B. A., Kahng S. Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: implications for preference assessments. J Appl Behav Anal. 1999 Winter;32(4):479–493. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-479. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Tustin R. D. Preference for reinforcers under varying schedule arrangements: A behavioral economic analysis. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Winter;27(4):597–606. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Windsor J., Piché L. M., Locke P. A. Preference testing: a comparison of two presentation methods. Res Dev Disabil. 1994 Nov-Dec;15(6):439–455. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(94)90028-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES